When MTV
produced the Super Bowl halftime show with Janet Jackson, parents around
the country were shocked and outraged at what they saw. But children
were not, simply because they watch MTV and know this is standard fare
on that network. Given the chance, how many parents would have picked up
the phone and unsubscribed to MTV the next day? But they can't. The
industry won't allow it. And MTV receives hundreds of millions of
dollars every year from families who don't want that network in their
home.

With the
exception of cable television, no other media sector requires a customer
to purchase a product he/she does not want – or that he/she may even
find harmful or offensive – in order to consume a product that he/she
does want. When you go to the ten-theater cineplex to watch a movie, are
you forced also to pay for the other nine movies you're not there to
watch? Of course not. If you subscribe to Sports Illustrated magazine,
are you also forced to purchase Time magazine and People magazine? Such
an idea would be absurd. If you go to the newsstand to buy the day's
Washington Post, are you forced also to purchase the Washington Times?
No, and if you were, you'd go to a different newsstand.

So why is
it that we cannot pick and choose – and pay for – only the cable
networks we want in our homes? Because the cable network programmers
have a chokehold on the public. They make billions of dollars every year
by forcing you to pay them for channels you don't watch, don't want, and
may actually find offensive. And unlike the newsstand analogy, the
programmers force their bundle onto every distributor, whether it be a
cable system or a satellite operator. There is no alternative.

That's why
family groups like the Parents Television Council have joined with
national consumer organizations and even a number of prominent cable
television executives in calling for some form of á la carte cable
pricing.

Large media
conglomerates bundle their most popular networks with other less-popular
networks, and they force you – the customer – to receive and pay for all
of them. Do you want to watch business news on CNBC? Then you must also
pay NBC for Bravo, SciFi, USA and another dozen or so cable networks it
owns. Do you want to watch football on ESPN? Then you will also have to
pay Walt Disney for the other networks it owns, like ABC Family and
Lifetime. Or maybe you want Nickelodeon for your kids. If so, you will
also have to pay Viacom for its anti-family programming like MTV, VH-1
and gay-lifestyle network Logo. For that matter, why should a Logo
subscriber be forced to pay for an unwanted children's network like
Nick? They shouldn't.

What is
perhaps worst of all is that many in the cable industry have succeeded
in perpetuating their anti-competitive and extortion-like business
practices with a litany of lies. And every time one of their lies is
exposed, they create a new one. Between their intentional
misrepresentation of the truth and their bottomless wallets flush with
campaign contributions for Senate and House incumbents – Democrat and
Republican alike – they have all but silenced any public debate on the
matter through fear and intimidation.

Some in
Congress feel that so-called "Family Tiers" of cable programming might
be a workable compromise to the issue. But in early 2005, when several
influential lawmakers suggested family tiers as an option, the industry
claimed that it could not possibly offer such a package. When threatened
with legislation last December, remarkably the industry was able to
implement family tiers in a matter of days. Another day, another lie
exposed. But the truth about family tiers is that they are a dodge; a
red herring, unless – unless – each family can choose its own family
tier. Shouldn't a family with a 6-year old have different needs than a
family with a 16-year old? Not according to the industry. With no
sports, no live entertainment, no movie channels and no choice for news,
their family tier structure is intended to fail so they can claim there
is no demand.

The reasons
in favor of á la carte cable pricing – or "Cable Choice" – are many, and
the proponents represent a broad and diverse coalition of local and
national organizations – including many in the cable/satellite industry.
The opponents of Cable Choice, however, appear to share one common
trait: They have an enormous financial benefit by keeping the status
quo. The opposing arguments can be quickly addressed and easily
dismissed:

Consumer
Prices

The cable
industry has spent much of the past year convincing Congress, the media
and the public that Cable Choice would increase, not decrease the cost
of cable. But for more than a decade, the cost of a cable subscription
has grown at several times the rate of inflation. So why is it that,
suddenly, the industry cries out on behalf of consumer prices as a
reason for keeping the current structure? Price increases have never
been a concern when the cable networks were keeping the money and nobody
questioned them about it. The reality is that consumer prices would not
go up under Cable Choice. They would go down. Forced to compete for the
consumer's dollar, networks would be forced to deliver a better product
at a lower price. History seems a perfect guide: When in the course of a
free commercial market has competition resulted in higher, not lower,
consumer prices? Answer: Never. And if pricing truly was a concern, why
are the largest consumer organizations in the country ardently
advocating Cable Choice? Both the Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer
Reports magazine, and the Consumer Federation of America emphatically
support Cable Choice as a means of helping the public by lowering cable
bills.

If á la
carte pricing would be certain death, as the industry claims, then why
are all the networks now jumping to offer pay-per-view programming via
internet video streams? And this practice goes a step beyond an á la
carte network model; these are individual programs which are being
offered on an á la carte basis. With Cable Choice, the market will
decide which networks, and which shows, will survive.

Program
Diversity

I bet you
can name a cable network targeting African-Americans. Let me guess: BET,
right? Sure, but can you name a second, or a third or a fourth such
network? They exist, but under the current structure most
African-American families won't ever see them. The industry claims
program diversity would be lost with cable choice. But that is untrue.
The reality today is that unless a network is owned by one of the major
media conglomerates, they are unlikely to get carriage at all.
Programmers use retransmission consent to force all of their networks
onto a cable system, leaving little space for small and niche-targeted
networks. For example, in Los Angeles there are about 60 channels that
comprise the basic and expanded basic cable tiers. Of those 60 channels,
13 are entirely or partly owned by NBC/GE; nine by CBS/Viacom; seven by
Fox/News Corp.; 11 by Disney; and Time-Warner and Liberty combined own
another 16 channels. Unbundling will allow more niche networks to reach
the market. And those with quality programming at a fair price will
succeed. Case in point – one of the most successful cable networks in
history and certainly the cable network held in the highest regard in
terms of program quality is HBO, a network which is sold on its own
outside of the basic or expanded basic tiers.

Government Interference

What both
sides of this issue can agree on is that government regulation is the
option of absolute last resort. But sadly we are at that point. Given
the deceit and the utter disregard that the cable industry has shown for
the public on this issue, there appears to be no private sector
solution. Some opponents of Cable Choice claim that the government has
no legal authority to impose an á la carte unbundling of cable network
programming. But clad with the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution,
Congress has intervened in anti-competitive markets for more than a
hundred years. Furthermore we have never suggested that the industry be
prohibited form selling programming in bundled tiers. Rather our
position is that cable operators should allow consumers to unbundle
networks if they so choose. Some consumers may choose to keep their
programming bundles. But to prohibit the unbundling would perpetuate
price gouging and ultimately prevent market forces from entering into
the business equation.

If there
were no need for government involvement at this point, then why are
cable industry executives speaking to Congress about a problem that
they, themselves, are unable to control? DISH Network CEO, Charlie Ergen,
told Congress he wants to provide Cable Choice but cannot because the
networks forbid him from doing so. Matt Polka of the American Cable
Association represents 1100 cable systems across the US. He told
Congress that he wants to provide Cable Choice but cannot because of the
network chokehold. And now Charles Dolan, Chairman of Cablevision, says
he wants to offer Cable Choice. These business leaders know there is a
demand for unbundled programming and they are unable to offer it under
the current industry structure. Sadly, the industry has been exposed and
it appears a regulatory solution is needed.

Solutions

There are
two practical Cable Choice solutions. One is an "opt-in" solution. Think
of it like a sushi restaurant menu. You pick and pay for only those
items you want. It is simple and straightforward. But there is also a
second solution which, I believe, would assuage many of the cable
industry's concerns; yet it would also provide adequate protections for
parents and families, while also offering the economic benefits desired
by the consumer organizations. This second solution is an "opt-out"
solution. You would purchase a programming tier and could "opt out" of
some number of networks which you didn't want, receiving a credit on
your monthly cable bill for those networks you "opt out" of. This
structure might encourage many subscribers to include more networks than
they otherwise might under and "opt-in" solution, and it would preserve
some semblance of the current economic structure that the industry
yearns to retain. Either way, the industry has shown no interest or
movement towards embracing a more free-market approach to cable
programming bundles. That's why such a diverse group of organizations
and a growing number of Americans across the country are mobilizing to
make Cable Choice a reality.

Tim
Winter is the President of the Parents Television Council (www.parentstv.org),
a non-profit, non-partisan organization committed to protecting children
and families from graphic sex, violence and profanity in the media.

Parents Television Council,
www.parentstv.org, PTC,
Clean Up TV Now, Because our children are watching, The
nation's most influential advocacy organization, Protecting
children against sex, violence and profanity in
entertainment, Parents Television Council Seal of Approval,
and Family Guide to Prime Time Television
are trademarks of the Parents Television Council.